HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - ARCH-0506-2019 (487 Leff) HASLO HeadquartersMeeting Date: May 4, 2020
Item Number: 3
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of a two-story, 13,084-square foot office structure. The project will
include demolishing the existing 5,444-square foot offices, and redevelopment of the site. The project
proposes an amendment to the Planned Development Precise Plan (see Section 4.0) to address
requests for a 40 percent parking reduction, and reconfiguration of street parking, providing 16
parking spaces on-site where 44 parking spaces would normally be required (Attachment 1, Project
Description). The project includes exceptions to the street yard setback to allow for parking along Leff
Street, where a 20 foot setback is normally required, and an exception to allow a trash enclosure along
Beach Street, where a 10 foot setback is normally required (Attachment 2, Revised Project Plans). The
project also includes exceptions to the sign regulations to allow three signs with a total area of 77.5
sq. ft., where normally limited to one sign of 20 sq. ft. (Attachment 3, Project Signage).
General Location: The 16,712-square foot
project site is located on developed property
along High Street, Leff Street, and Beach Street ,
with direct access from Beach and Leff Streets.
Present Use: HASLO Headquarters (Office)
Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2-PD)
zone within a Planned Development Overlay
General Plan: Medium Residential Density
Surrounding Uses:
East: Warehousing and Distribution
West: Multi-Family Housing
North: Multi-Family Housing
South: Multi-Family Housing
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary architectural design
Design details: Flat roof system with varying parapet heights and entry towers, outdoor sitting areas,
upper level balcony, trellises, rain screen, and awnings.
Materials: Stucco, fiber cement lap siding, open-slat aluminum siding, anodized aluminum storefront,
and precast concrete base.
Colors: Primary various wood elements; secondary colors include light blue, beige, greenish grey, with
a light-brown storefront and dark brown trim.
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 487 Leff Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
APPLICANT: Scott Smith REPRESENTATIVE: Pam Ricci
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 3
Packet Page 3
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 2
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC) role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations, and applicable City
Standards and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission (PC).
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=24661
BACKGROUND
The Planned Development (PD) Overlay included development of 20 affordable residential units
located at 468 Leff Street, and the Housing Authority offices located at 487 Leff Street. The existing
Development Plan authorized a street setback reduction for the office development from 20 feet to
10 feet along High Street (Project Plans Sheet A3, Existing Site Plan). The applicant proposes to amend
the Development Plan to provide for a larger office development with a reduced setback for vehicle
parking within the street yard along Leff Street (Project Plans Sheet A4, Proposed Site Plan). Zoning
Regulations Section 17.48.090 (Amendments to Final Development Plans) stipulates that amendments
to final development plans may be approved by the PC when limited to changes in the size and position
of buildings, landscape treatment, or the like.
On April 10, 2019, the PC provided a conceptual review of the proposed project to offer feedback to
the applicant and staff on the project’s conceptual site layout and building design; and to specifically
discuss concerns and questions related to land use consistency (Attachment 3, PC Report, Meeting
Minutes 4.10.19). The applicant had modified the project plans prior to initial ARC review to reflect
the PC’s comments, a response to each directional item has been provided in the project description
(Attachment 1).
The ARC reviewed the project on March 2, 2020 and continued the project to a date uncertain to
address concerns for consistency with the CDG (Attachment 4, ARC Report and Minutes). During their
review the ARC identified five directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns related
to building and site design, as discussed in detail in the section below.
Figure 2: Rendering of project design from the intersection of Leff Street and High Street.
Item 3
Packet Page 4
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 3
DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The ARC recommended five directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final action
on the project. The applicant has updated the project plans and made the following changes in
response to the directional items (Attachment 5, Applicant’s Response Letter):
ARC Directional Item #1: Plans shall be revised to incorporate lower plate heights of the building to
reduce the mass and scale of the structure.
Response: The applicant has revised the project design and reduced the plate heights, reducing the
overall height of the project by two feet.
ARC Directional Item #2: Plans shall be revised to reduce the bulk and mass of the vertical support
column along the High Street elevation.
Response: The applicant has revised the support column along the High Street elevation by reducing
the width by one-third and removing the 45-degree brackets, to reduce the bulk and prominence of
the column. Staff recommends
the following condition for PC
consideration: Plans submitted
for a building permit shall reduce
the width of the stucco base that
extends from the support column
of the second story awning along
the High Street elevation to further
reduce the mass and bulk of the
column, subject to the satisfaction
of the Community Development
Director.
ARC Directional Item #3: Plans shall consider incorporating pitched roof elements into the project to
address further compatibility with adjacent residential structures.
Response: The applicant has modified the project design to include pitched awnings instead of the flat
window shades previously provided (Figure 3). However, the applicant has expressed concerns with
incorporating additional pitched roof elements to the project design, a s a pitched roof system or
mansard roof design would add to the bulk and mass of the structure and would be disingenuous to
the architectural style’s authenticity. The applicant has also expressed their intent with compatibility
beyond the immediate vicinity to incorporate the character of High Street between Higuera and Broad
Streets. The project site would provide an architectural connection between the commercial
structures throughout High Street, which includes a variety of uses and architectural styles for existing
commercial structures with very similar circumstances.
The primary goals of the CDG are to maintain the community’s quality of life for residents, maintain
property values, attract growth in the local economy, and preserve the City’s natural beauty and visual
character (CDG Section 1.4). The CDG also state that the ARC may interpret these guidelines with
flexibility in their application to specific projects, as not all design criteria may be workable or
Figure 3: Original column design (left), revised column design (right).
Item 3
Packet Page 5
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 4
appropriate for each project, the overall objective is to ensure that the intent and spirit of the design
guidelines are followed (CDG Section 1.3). Staff has reviewed the applicant’s response letter with
consideration of the overall objectives of the CDG. While the project may conflict with specific
guidelines of the CDG such as architectural compatibility of the immediate vicinity, no evidence has
been found that the architectural style would be detrimental to th e quality of life or property values
of residents. Furthermore, the project promotes growth of an existing local business that will continue
to support the local economy, and the project’s overall design does not distract from the City’s natural
beauty and enhances the visual character of the neighborhood.
Discussion Item #1: The ARC should provide feedback to the PC on whether or not the applicant’s
request to deviate from the strict interpretations of the CDG for neighborhood compatibil ity in
consideration of the unique circumstances of the site and the context of High Street is in keeping
with the overall intent and spirit of the design guidelines.
ARC Directional Item #4: Plans shall consider simplifying materiality of the project by reducing either
the number of colors or types of materials to reduce clutter and simplify the design.
Response: The applicant has revised the project design by removing various materials to reduce clutter
and simplify the design (see Project Plans Sheets A7, A8, A15, A16, and A17 for detailed comparison
of the revisions). Materials that have been removed include the green stucco color, one of the fiber
cement siding materials, and one of the wainscot/base materials, other improvements and efforts
have also been incorporated into the design to further reduce clutter (Figure 4).
ARC Directional Item #5: The applicant shall demonstrate safe vehicle circulation for vehicles that
maneuver in and out of the on-site parking space closest to the intersection of High Street and Leff
Street.
Response: The applicant has requested to defer this concern to the PC. The City’s Transportation
Division reviewed and evaluated the layout of the parking spaces in response to concerns from the
PC conceptual hearing and the ARC. Transportation staff have recommended the following condition
Figure 4: Original High Street Elevation (top), revised High Street Elevation (bottom).
Item 3
Packet Page 6
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 5
for PC consideration: The applicant shall incorporate into the improvement plans traffic calming
measures such as colored/textured pavement surface at the entry or along the full of block of Leff,
raised crosswalk/speed table for the pedestrian crossing Leff Street at High Street, or other traffic
calming features, subject to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
PROJECT STATISTICS (UPDATED)
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Building Setbacks
Leff Street
Beach Street
High Street
28 feet
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Parking Setback 0 feet (Leff Street) 20 feet
Trash Enclosure Setback 0 feet (Beach Street) 10 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 32 feet 35 feet
Building Coverage 44% 50%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.78 No Requirement
Signage
Number of Signs
Maximum Area
3
77.5 sq. ft.
1
20 sq. ft.
Public Art Location identified on Sheet A4
(separate application required) Optional
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
44 (30% reduction)
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
30
65
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
9
Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)
*2019 Zoning Regulations
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application
will be forwarded to the PC for final action. This action may include recommendations for
conditions to address consistency with the CDG.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Description
2. Revised Project Plans
3. Previous PC Report, Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019
4. Previous ARC Report and Minutes March 2, 2020
5. Applicant Response Letter
6. Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)
7. Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
Item 3
Packet Page 7
Item 3
Packet Page 8
Item 3
Packet Page 9
Item 3
Packet Page 10
Item 3
Packet Page 11
Item 3
Packet Page 12
Item 3Packet Page 13
Item 3
Packet Page 14
Item 3
Packet Page 15
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USET1# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)TITLE SHEET487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USESITEHIGH ST.KING
LEFF ST.BEA
C
H ST.PROJECT DIRECTORYOWNER:HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO487 LEFF STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ARCHITECT:RRM DESIGN GROUP3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: DARIN CABRALPHONE: (805)-543-1794EMAIL: DJCABRAL@RRMDESIGN.COMPROJECT ADDRESS:487 LEFF STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN:003-623-001PROJECT DESCRIPTIONHASLO PLANS TO REDEVELOP THE SITE AT 487 LEFF STREET WHERE THEIREXISTING OFFICES ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED WITH A NEW TWO-STORY, 13,118 SQUARE-FOOT HEADQUARTERS BUILDING. THE LARGER BUILD-ING IS NOT DESIGNED TO EXPAND STAFFING BUT BETTER ACCOMMO-DATE THEIR CURRENT BUSINESS NEEDS FOR BOTH EMPLOYEES AND CLIENTS. THE GROUND FLOOR IS INTENDED TO BE THE CUSTOMER USE AREA, PROVIDE CONFERENCE ROOM SPACES, AND A LARGER TRAIN-ING ROOM THAT CAN ALSO ACCOMMODATE BOARD MEETINGS.THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD PROVIDE STAFF OFFICES AND A BREAK ROOM.SINCE HASLO OWNS BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET IN THIS BLOCK OF LEFF STREET, ON-SITE PARKING IS PROPOSED THAT BACK OUT INTO THE STREET ALLOWING FOR THE LARGER FIRST FLOOR FOOTPRINT TO MEET ALL THE CUSTOMER SERVICE NEEDS FOR CLIENTS. THIS CONCEPT WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 4-10-19 AND GENERAL-LY SUPPORTED.PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDE A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PRECISEPLAN APPROVED WITH THE ORIGINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZON-ING AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS. TO AD-DRESS A REQUEST FOR REDUCED PARKING, A PARKING STUDY AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS BEING PRE-PARED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW PROVIDED PARKING CAN HANDLEANTICIPATED DEMAND.THE PROJECT BUILDING DESIGN IS A CONTEMPORARY DESIGN THAT INCLUDES A VARIETY OF MATERIALS AND WALL PLANE MODULATIONTO ADD INTEREST AND ARTICULATION. SIMILARLY, PROPOSED COL-ORS ARE CAREFULLY PLACED AND COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER BUT ARE VARIED. THE BUILDING MASSING AND SCALE IS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ARTICULATION AND THE HIGH STREET ELEVATION ISSTEPPED BACK IN HEIGHT FROM THE STREET FRONTAGES TO ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY.PARKING REDUCTIONCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 17.72.050 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS,A PARKING DEMAND STUDY WITH TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MAN-AGEMENT PLAN (TDMP) WILL BE PREPARED TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW FOR PROPOSED PARKING REDUC-TIONS. THE PARKING STUDY AND TDMP WOULD FURTHER DEFINE WHAT PROGRAMS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR ONSITE PARKING AND PREVENT CARS FROM SPILLING OVER ONTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. A KEY PART OF HASLO’S CASE FOR A PARK-ING REDUCTION IS THAT THE NEW OFFICE SPACE WILL HELP THEM TO OPERATE MORE EFFICIENTLY AND HAVE COMMON OFFICE FUNCTIONSLIKE BREAK AREAS AND MEETING ROOMS RATHER THAN SIGNIFICANTLYADD NEW EMPLOYEES THAT INCREASE PARKING DEMAND.SHEET INDEXT1 TITLE SHEETA1 INSPIRATION IMAGESA2 CONTEXT IMAGESA3 EXISTING SITE PLANA4 PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANA5 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANA6 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANA7 PROPOSED ELEVATIONSA8 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL EELVATIONSA9 SIGNAGE CALCULATIONSA10 SITE SECTIONSA11 ENTRY SCENEA12 BEACH SCENEA13 LEFF SCENEA14 SOUTH SCENEA15 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONA16 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONA17 COLOR AND MATERIALSA18 DETAIL VIGNETTESA19 HIGH ST. ELEVATIONSA20 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONC1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC2 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYC3 UTILITY PLANC4 VEHICLE TURN EXHIBITL1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANPROJECT STATISTICSZONINGR-2-PD - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALPLANNED DEVELOPMENTPARCEL SIZE:0.38 ACRES (16,713 SF)BUILDING GROSS AREA13,082 SFGROUND FLOOR7,329 SFSECOND FLOOR5,753 SFMAX LOT COVERAGE:50% ( 8,357 SF)PROPOSED COVERAGE:44% (GROUND FLOOR/PARCEL SIZE)LANDSCAPE AREA 3,558 SFIMPERVIOUS SURFACE:13,155 SFMAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT:35 FT.MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT:32 FT.YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSEDFRONT15’-0” 27’-6”SIDE10’-0” 10’-0”REAR10’-0” 10’-0”OCCUPANCY TYPES & AREAS:OFFICE10,400 SFRESTROOM 812 SFSTORAGE 333 SFCIRCULATION/LOBBY 1,053 SFKITCHEN/COMMON 520 SFCONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE VBVICINITY MAPPARKINGAUTO PARKINGCALCULATIONSPACECOUNTPARKING REQUIRED:OFFICE1 SPACE PER 300 SF (13,082/300) 4430% PARKING REDUCTION44 * 0.3 = 13.2 REDUCTION(13.2)TOTAL REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED31BICYCLE PARKING REDUCTION 4 SPACE REDUCTION PERMUNICIPAL CODE WITH 20 BICYCLESPACES ADDED(4)PARKING REQUIREDTOTAL REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED - AFTER REDUCTIONS27PARKING PROVIDED16 ON-SITE PARKING AND 4 SHARED OFF-SITE PER P.D.20MOTORCYCLE PARKINGCALCULATIONSPACECOUNTPARKING REQUIRED:PER MUNICIPAL CODE: 27/201/20 AUTO PARKING REQUIRED 1.35PARKING PROVIDED:2 PROVIDED SHARED OFF-SITE PERP.D.2BICYCLE PARKINGPARKING REQUIRED:PER MUNICIPAL CODE: (13,118/1,500)1 PER 1500 SF 8.75SHORT TERM PROVIDED:75% PER MUNICIPAL CODE: (6.56) 7LONG TERM PROVIDED:25% PER MUNICIPAL CODE: (2.18) 320 ADDITIONAL BICYCLE PARKING PER PARKING REDUCTION75% SHORT TERM25% LONG TERM155TOTAL PROVIDED:SHORT TERM 22LONG TERM 8GRAND TOTAL 30Item 3Packet Page 16
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA1# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020INSPIRATION IMAGESItem 3Packet Page 17
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA2# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020CONTEXT IMAGESItem 3Packet Page 18
DISTANCE FROM APRON5' - 0"22' - 0"DISTANCE TO INTERSECTION20' - 0"DISTANCE FROM APRON5' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"DISTANCE TO INTERSECTION20' - 0"123456DISTANCETO INTERSECTION20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"DISTANCE TO APRON5' - 0"DISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"DISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'- 0"9 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES3 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES10 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"20' - 0"6 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA3# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020EXISTING SITE PLAN1” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)Item 3Packet Page 19
Side Setback10' - 0"FrontSetback10'- 0"Side Setback10' - 0"&'2#46/'06ADA VAN STALLHIGH STREETLEFF STREETEXISTING R.O.W. INCLUDING SIDEWALKS50' - 0"BEACH STREET27' - 6"CLEAR DRIVE ASILE24' - 0"PUBLIC ART LOCATIONONE WAYONE WAYEXISTING CENTERLINE OF LEFF STREETSTOP
18 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES16 ON-SITE PARKING SPACESSTOPSTOPSTOPDISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"22'- 0"DISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'- 0"DISTANCE TO INTERSECTION20' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"22' - 0"20' - 0"5 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES9 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES40'- 0"25'- 0"11'- 0"66'- 6"12'- 10"142'-6"30' - 0"40' - 6"17' - 0"11' - 0"20' - 6"BLDG. FOOTPRINTF.F. 214'-6"8'-3"--------22'-0"22'-0"22'-0"22'-0"DISTANCETOINTERSECTION35'-0"4 PUBLIC PARKINGSPACES2/T91/T9487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA4# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN1” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)Item 3Packet Page 20
118 SF55'%74''064;68 SF'.191 SF56#+4141 SF64#5*Á ('0%'&%144#.61 SF/'%*411/40'-0"25'- 0"11'-0"66'- 6"12'- 10"142'-6"1270 SF2412'46;/#0#)'/'06(#/+.;5'.(57((+%+'0%;1204 SF#..Á56#((64#+0+0)411/212 SF/'054'56411/203 SF91/'054'56411/210 SF%10('4'0%'411/210 SF%10('4'0%'411/465 SF%10('4'0%'411/395 SF%10('4'0%'411/252 SF5614#)'121 SF4'%'26+10173 SF.1$$;155 SF%+4%7.#6+10284 SF#64+7/193 SF52'%+#.241)4#/5217 SF%#2+6#.+/2418'/'065439 SF':'%76+8'#0&&+4'%614178 SF2#6+1560 SF.170)''40' - 6"17' - 0"11' - 0"20' - 6"38' - 1"11' - 0"21' - 4"39' - 2"109' - 7"89' - 0"19' -11"1' - 0"&'2#46/'06%#2+6#.+/2418'/'065%+4%7.#6+10%.+'064'.#6+105%10('4'0%'411/':'%76+8' &+4'%61451((+%'5(#/+.;5'.(57((+%+'0%;4'56411/52'%+#.241)4#/55614#)'12'- 8"FIRE RISERLOCATION487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA5# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANFIRST FLOOR PLAN1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1Item 3Packet Page 21
1031 SF((+0#0%'68 SF'.520 SF-+6%*'0%1//10Not Enclosed&'%-803 SF*175+0)52'%#.+565&'2#46/'06%+4%7.#6+10':'%76+8' &+4'%61451((+%'5(+0#0%'*175+0)/#0#)'/'064'56411/5614#)'9'..0'55#4'#789 SF&'%-194 SF/'054'56411/203 SF91/'054'56411/76 SF5614#)'558 SF%+4%7.#6+10183 SF56#+451261 SF*175+0)/#0#)/'06#55+56#065801 SF':'%76+8'#0&&+4'%61457' - 6"11' - 0"15'- 10"41'-2"9'-6"11'- 0"40'-8"12'- 4"12'- 2"114'-8"68' - 6"38' - 1"11' - 0"21' - 10"23' - 7"94' - 6"19'- 3"11'- 3"8' - 0"16' -11"SECOND FLOOR PLAN1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1SHOWER INCLUDEDSHOWER INCLUDED487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA6# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANItem 3Packet Page 22
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA7# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED ELEVATIONS35’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-6”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENING35’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-0”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENING35’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-6”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENINGHIGH ST. ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1LEFF ST. ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2BEACH ST. ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)3Item 3Packet Page 23
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA8# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL ELEVATIONS3 ’ - 0”3 ’ - 0”3 ’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”248’-6”A AT RA RA E/ RST SE AX A A EAX R SE2 1’-0”AX AR H E E E TS/ E H S REE214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”248’-6”A AT RA RA E/ RST SE AX A A EAX R SE2 1’-0”AX AR H E E E TS/ E H S REE214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”248’-6”A AT RA RA E/ RST SE AX A A EAX R SE2 1’-0”AX AR H E E E TS/ E H S REEHIGH ST. ELEVATION1/8 = 1-0 (24 X 36 SHEET)1LEFF ST. ELEVATION1/8 = 1-0 (24 X 36 SHEET)2BEACH ST. ELEVATION1/8 = 1-0 (24 X 36 SHEET)3Item 3Packet Page 24
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA9# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SIGNAGE CALCULATIONS - NO CHANGE25’ - 0” MAX.HIGH ST. SIGNAGE1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1LEFF ST. SIGNAGE1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2wall sign (2'-4”x20' = 46.5 sf)raised channel sign (7”x27' = 15.5 sf)raised channel sign (7”x27' = 15.5 sf)Proposed Sign StatisticsHigh Street Raised Channel Signs (1) 15.5 S.F.Wall Signs (1) 46.5 S.F.Leff StreetRaised Channel Signs (1) 15.5 S.F. Item 3Packet Page 25
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA10# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SITE SECTIONSLEFF STREETSTAIRSMENSRESTROOMCONF.ROOM 3LOUNGECAPITALIMPROVEMENTSPROPERTY MANAGEMENT/FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCYMENSRESTROOMWOMENSRESTROOMWOMENSRESTROOMSPECIALPROGAMSHOUSING MANAGEMENT/ASSISTANTSHOUSING MANAGEMENT/ASSISTANTSHOUSINGSPECIALTIESSTAIRSHIGH STREETHIGH STREETBEACH STREETMECHANICAL SCREENING AREASECTION 11/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1SECTION 21/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)235’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-6”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENING35’ - 0” MAX ALLOWED32’ 0” MAX PROPOSED15’ - 0”17’ - 0”214’-6”231’-6”249’-6”246’-6”AVG. NATURAL GRADE/FIRST F.F.SECOND F.F.MAX. ALLOWABLEMAX. PROPOSED249’-6”MAX. ARCH. ELEMENTS/MECH. SCREENINGItem 3Packet Page 26
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA11# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020ENTRY SCENEItem 3Packet Page 27
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA12# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020BEACH SCENEItem 3Packet Page 28
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA13# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020LEFF SCENEItem 3Packet Page 29
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA14# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020SOUTH SCENEItem 3Packet Page 30
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA15# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONPREVIOUS SUBMITTALBEACH SCENE1PROPOSEDBEACH SCENE2PROPOSEDHIGH STREET ENTRY SCENE4PREVIOUS SUBMITTALHIGH STREET ENTRY SCENE3Item 3Packet Page 31
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA16# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONPREVIOUS SUBMITTALSOUTH SCENE1PROPOSEDSOUTH SCENE2PROPOSEDLEFF SCENE4PREVIOUS SUBMITTALLEFF SCENE3Item 3Packet Page 32
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA17# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)COLOR AND MATERIALSFA2BCCCIHHA2EEEGGGIFGBRAIN SCREEN SIDINGMATAVERDE GARAPA HARDWOODOPEN-SLAT ALUMINUM SIDINGLONGBOARD - DARK FIRFIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGJAMES HARDIE - HARDIEPLANKPAINTED - SW 6061 TANBARKSTUCCOPAINTED - SW 7506 LOGGIASTUCCOPAINTED - SW 9151 DAPHNEPRECAST CONCRETE BASECDI - PEBBLE FINISHHIANODIZED STOREFRONT SYSTEMCHAMPAGE FINISHPOWDER-COATED STEELHARDENED BROWN FINISHItem 3Packet Page 33
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA18# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)DETAIL VIGNETTESSOLID CUT METAL HASLO SIGNAGEPOWDER-COATED STEEL BANDELEVATOR ACCENT TOWER ARCHITECTURALPROJECTIONOPEN-SLAT ALUMINUM SIDING SCREENPOWDER-COATED STEEL PORCH COVERING OVER HIGH ST. ENTRYRAISED LETTERS METAL SIGNAGEGLAZING AT STAIR TOWERPLASTER COLUMN BASE WITH METAL CAPPOWDER-COATED STEEL COLUMNPOWDER-COATED STEEL BANDSOLAR PANELS EMBEDDED IN AWNINGSTANDING SEAM PITCHED SLOPE AWNING OVER WINDOWSHARDWOOD RAIN SCREEN SIDING SYSTEMWOODEN BRACKETS/STRUCTUREPOWDER-COATED STEEL AWNINGPOWDER-COATED STEEL PROFILEALUMINUM TUBE GUARDRAILOPEN-SLAT ALUMINUM SIDING SCREENItem 3Packet Page 34
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA19# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 2020HIGH ST. ELEVATIONSEXISTINGHIGH STREET ELEVATION1PROPOSEDHIGH STREET ELEVATION2Item 3Packet Page 35
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEA20# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISIONPREVIOUS SUBMITTALHIGH STREET ELEVATION1PROPOSEDHIGH STREET ELEVATION2Item 3Packet Page 36
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEC1# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET) E E SE SE SE ETE E T EEX ST E TE EEX ST T SE T SE E SE SE S TEX ST E H TAREA ST R A E 0 70 A T 200 600 T T EST TES THESE S E T E SE E T SES T S THE ES S T THE T T T E T T T ES THE SE ST T THE E TH T T ES SH HE E E ESE T THE EST TE ET E E E ET EE THE SE H E THE TE T H EX ST ES THESEEST TES T E S E T S SSES E T SH E S E E TS ST T ST T TE H E T T E H S S ET THESE T T T E T S ST T TE H E THE E E T S THE S S E EE S T E E T THE T/EX T T T ES E TH T T ES1 T T T EX ST ES T E E TT E- S 2 S E SS S ES 2 X X E T T E S 2 X E T EXTE S 2 X E T 60 HES THE SE S T 3 THE T T SH SE TE E T EX ESS ST T TE S S TE E SE/ E E S S SE TE S SH E E E 4 T T T E E E T SH E E T ES T E E TT SH E S S TE T T SH E S E S TE S EE E S T SH TH H ET ST T T T SH ST E- E T E TE THEE E T HE E S E E TE E ST T S THE ST T E TE T T E E TES TES SE SE 6 T E ETE 18 TTE SE 6 T E ETE SE S E SE E EST 1234 821821
S S
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
SS
S S S S S S H H ST EET E H ST EET
E ST EET61
1
1 1
23 SE = 214 1 16 12 2 0
1 1 4 21 4 0 4 348 3 1 1
2 8 3 3 E T E ST E ST TE T E T E T SE T SE T SHE S E E - 1 1 - 1 10 8 3 6 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 6 2 0 0 6 2 8 4 S E E SE T 4 2 1 4 8 2 4 4 6 1 2 0 1 0
1 ET E S E T EE E E S E S 26 201 12 41 E E SE SE SE ETE E T EEX ST E TE EEX ST T SE T SE E SE SE S TEX ST E H T ST R A E 0 70 A200 600 TES THESE S E T E SE SES T S THE ES S T T E T T T ES ST T T T ES SH HE E ET E E E H E THE ES THESEE T S E S T S ET T S T TH T T ES1 T T T EX ST ES T E E TT E- S 2 S E SS S ES 2 X X E T T E S 2 X E T EXTE S 2 X E T 60 HES THE SE S T 3 THE T T SH SE TE E T EX ESS ST T TE S S TE E SE/ E E S S SE TE S SH E E E 4 T T T E E E T SH E E T ES T E E TT SH E S S TE T T SH E S E S TE S EE E S T SH TH H ET ST T T T SH ST E- E T E TE THEE E T HE E S E E TE E ST T S THE ST T E TE T T E E TES TES SE SE 6 T E ETE 18 TTE SE 6 T E ETE SE S E SE E EST 1234 821821PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANItem 3Packet Page 37
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEC2# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY =214 0 =21 ETE ETEH H ST EET E ST EET E H ST EET
E H ETE ETE ETE ETE ETE S ETE ETE ETE H T T TES E SE THE T S S SH T T ET TS 804 8064 E T T THE E H TH S S E S THE T E H E S-1 E H H ST EETS H H T T TES E SE THE T S S S H T T ET TS 804 8064 E T T THE E H TH S S E S THE T S S S E H E S-1 E T T THE THE SE E H H ST EETS H E E T 204 2 Item 3Packet Page 38
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEC3# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)UTILITY PLANS S H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
SS
S S S S S S H H ST EET E H ST EET
E ST EET SE = 214 1234 626 201 12 40 E S T T TES SE 2 TE ES EST TE T E TE T EX ST TE SE 4 00 E TE E TE T EX ST TE SE 4 SE E TE SE 4 SE E SE / E T SE 6 ST SE ST ST T E1234 6 S E E SE SE ETE E T EEX ST E TE EEX ST T SE T SE ST EX ST TE EX ST S T SE TE TE SE S T TE SE E SE SE S TEX ST E H TEX ST S E SE S SE EEX ST E HE E821821IHHW
E ST EET XE SE 1 EX ST T T ES T S E X TE SE E S E T E E TES S T T TES SE 2 TE ES EST TE T E TE T EX ST TE SE 4 00 E TE E TE T EX ST TE SE 4 SE E TE SE 4 SE E SE / E T SE 6 ST SE ST ST T E 1234 6 S E E SE SE ETE E T EEX ST E TE EEX ST T SE T SE ST EX ST TE EX ST S T SE TE TE SE S T TE SE E SE SE S TEX ST E H TEX ST S E SE S SE EEX ST E HE E821821Item 3Packet Page 39
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEC4# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)VEHICLE TURN EXHIBIT
S
L
OH AH A
S
LH A
S
LH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
H AH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
A
S
L
O
A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A A
S
L
O
A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
S
L
O
S
L
OH A
S
L
OH AH A
S
H A
S
H A
S
L
OH A
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
OA S
L
OH A
S
L
OA S
L
OA S
L
OA S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O1 2 E H
2 E2 S -30 EH EEH H HS -30 EH EEH H HST 1 SSE E SS EH E EH ST 1 1 SSE E SS EH E18 2 E H H H2 2 2
E E T S T SH H S H S E E T S T ST EET TH TH 23
61
18 1818 18 3 3 3 8 3 3 6 66
42 22222222 22 Item 3Packet Page 40
487 LEFF STREET MIXED-USEL1# 0879-01-RS1713 APRIL 20201” = 16’-0” (24X36 SHEET)0 8 16 321” = 32’-0” (12X18 SHEET)CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ET TH S T E E E T SE T E S TE T T E E TE E T T TH E ST ET SH ST E ETE T T EE E TH TE T DESI E RELIMI R L T LIST T EES E T S ST E T EE ST H E S S H ESE ST HEEX ST T EE T E S SH S E E S E TH S S E E TES E S H ST E E H ET TE T E E SH E E E SS E SS E X EST ES E S S SH X TE E E E E E E E E S S E S T E E T SH E E E TT E E T TT E E E H S T S E S E S E H S E E X TT S S T H H S S S SE S S S ESE E S E E E SES E T S T SS TES 1 S TE SH S SH E E E E E 2 T E S E E S H E - E TE S TE TE E EE E T TE S E T E ETE E IRRI TI D L TI DESI RITERI E THE SE S S T T E E SE T T THE T TE E TE S T T THE E E E TS E HH E T EE SH E E S E TE SE TE H ES S TH T E EST SHE TE E E TE E E E T E T E E E E T E T T ES E S EE E TH E ET T E T TH T TH S T ETTE E TH THE T S STE ES E E EET EX EE THE ST TE E TE E E T S E E ( E ) E S E H TE T E SE E 6426 4 4 EXISTI TREE RTIRRI TI L UL TI S MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA )ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USAGE (ETWU)66xJAKKE MINNICKCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCItem 3Packet Page 41
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual review of a new two-story office development for the Housing Authority Headquarters consisting of 13,113 square feet and associated site improvements. The project includes an amendment to the Planned Development Precise Plan to address street yard setback reductions and parking lot orientation. PROJECT ADDRESS: 487 Leff Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0077-2019 FROM: Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to the applicant on items to be addressed in plans submitted for final review.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans for conceptual review for the subject site located at 487 Leff Street.
The project will include demolishing the existing 5,444 square foot offices, redevelopment of the site,
and development of a new, two-story, 13,114-square foot office building. The project proposes an
amendment to the Planned Development Precise Plan (see Section 2.0) to address requests for a 30
percent parking reduction, and reconfiguration of street parking, providing 17 parking spaces on-site
where 44 parking spaces would normally be required, (Attachment 1, Project Narrative).
The subject property is located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-2-PD) zone with a Planned
Development Overlay (Attachment 3, Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)). The Planned Development
Overlay included a Planned Development Precise Plan (Development Plan) that was approved by the
City Council which included the 20 residential units and the existing office development (Attachment
4, Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)).
Applicant SLO Housing Authority
Representative Pam Ricci, RRM Design Group
Zoning R-2-PD (Medium Density
Residential with Planned
Development Overlay)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area ~16,712 square feet
Environmental
Status
Final plans for the proposed
project will require further
environmental analysis.
Meeting Date: April 10, 2019
Item Number: 3
Item 3
Packet Page 42
ARCH-0077-2019 (Conceptual)
487 Leff Street
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The purpose of conceptual review before the Planning Commission is to offer feedback to the
applicant and staff as to whether the project’s conceptual site layout and building design is headed in
the right direction before plans are further refined; to specifically discuss concerns and questions
related to land use consistency; and to identify the appropriate application submittal process. The
Commission’s purview is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan,
Zoning Regulations, and applicable City development standards and guidelines.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The PD Overlay included development of 20 affordable residential units located at 468 Leff Street,
and the Housing Authority offices located at 487 Leff Street. The existing Development Plan
authorized a street setback reduction for the office development from 20 feet to 10 feet, and a parking
reduction to provide 40 parking spaces where 55 parking spaces would have normally been required
(Attachment 4, Sheet A1, Existing Site Plan).
The applicant proposes to amend the Development Plan to provide for a larger office development
with a reduced setback for vehicle parking within the street yard along Leff Street, and a new vehicle
parking reduction (Attachment 4, Sheet A2, Proposed Site Plan). Zoning Regulations Section
17.48.090 (Amendments to Final Development Plans) stipulates that amendments to final
development plans may be approved by the Planning Commission when limited to changes in the size
and position of buildings, landscape treatment, or the like.
3.0 DISCUSSION
The conceptual review application is not intended to provide the necessary materials (supplemental
studies) needed to provide a detailed environmental review or analysis of the project. Staff has
identified a set of specific discussion items for Commission’s consideration. The following discussion
items highlight the key concerns that the Commission should discuss and provide direction to the
applicant and staff:
1. Site Layout and Building Design: The proposed project provides an office development within
the residential zone. The project will be reviewed for consistency with Community Design
Guidelines Chapter 3.4 (Guidelines for Specific Commercial and Industrial Uses) for Office
development projects. Office structures differ from other commercial buildings in that their
Figure 1: Project Rendering as seen from High Street.
Item 3
Packet Page 43
ARCH-0077-2019 (Conceptual)
487 Leff Street
Page 3
intensity of use is lower while building scale is typically larger, without careful attention in design
to building form and mass, and street level features, these structures can impair the pedestrian
orientation of a streetscape.
Discussion Item #1: The Commission should discuss whether the conceptual site layout and
building design is compatible with adjacent uses. Specifically, the Commission should discuss
and provide direction to the applicant, staff, and the Architectural Review Commission regarding
the building orientation along the street frontages, parking within the street yard setback, and
building designs adjacent to existing residential developments.
2. Parking Requirements. The existing Development Plan, which was approved in the 1970s
included a 27 percent parking reduction to allow for 40 parking spaces for the residential units,
where 55 were normally required. In total the project provided 47 parking spaces for all proposed
uses at the time of development (37 spaces at 468 Leff Street and 10 spaces at 487 Leff Street).
Since the 1970s, parking requirements have changed for low-income residential units, and the
parking requirement under the standards that are in place today would require only 21 spaces for
the 20 units. See the table below for a breakdown of the parking requirements from the original
approval compared to the parking requirements under the proposed project.
Table 1: Comparative Parking Requirements
Original Parking
Requirement
Parking
Spaces
Proposed Parking
Requirement
Parking
Spaces
Residential (20 units) 55 Residential (20 units) 21
Office (2,000 sq. ft.) 7 Office (13,114 sq. ft.) 44
Parking Reduction (27%) -15 Parking Reduction (29%) -19
Total: 47 Total: 46
The applicant is requesting a parking reduction similar to the original project; however, the
reduction would be for the office uses rather than the residential units. The proposed project would
provide 29 parking spaces at 468 Leff Street and 17 spaces at 487 Leff Street, with a total of 46
parking spaces for the overall development, where 65 spaces would normally be required.
Discussion Item #2: The Commission should discuss whether the parking reduction is consistent
with the original Development Plan. The Commission may provide comments, suggestions, or
questions regarding the submittal of a parking study for features or programs to be included or
addressed, such as: excess bicycle parking or motorcycle parking, shower facilities, and other
programmatic opportunities or incentives.
3. Street Parking Re-configuration. The proposed project includes reconfiguration of street access
and parking along Leff Street and Beach Street, providing an additional 5 public parking spaces
along the street frontages. The applicant has been working with the City’s Transportation and
Engineering Divisions related to the public improvements; however, a more detailed review of
the changes will occur upon submittal of the Major Development Review application.
Discussion Item #3: The Commission may provide comments, suggestions, or questions related
to the reconfiguration of Leff Street and the orientation of public and private parking for the
applicant and staff to address upon submittal of the Major Development Review application.
Item 3
Packet Page 44
ARCH-0077-2019 (Conceptual)
487 Leff Street
Page 4
4.0 NEXT STEPS
Pending direction from the Commission, the applicant will apply for the appropriate entitlement
applications which are anticipated to include: Final Development Plan Amendment, and Development
Review (Major). After the entitlement applications have been deemed complete, the project will be
reviewed by Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to evaluate consistency with the City’s
Community Design Guidelines, with a recommendation to the Planning Commission for final review.
5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed1 Required2
Setbacks
Front Yard (Leff St.)
Corner Street Yard (High St.)
Corner Street Yard (Beach St.)
30 feet
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Height of Structures Not Available 35
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 44% 60%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.78 No requirement
Density Units 29 DU3 16.79 DU
Vehicle Parking 17 spaces 44 spaces
1 Project Plans (Attachment 2)
22019 Zoning Regulations
3Approved through Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
A pre-application meeting was held on September 6, 2018, and comments from other City
Departments including Engineering, Transportation, Utilities, Fire, and Building have been provided
to the applicant team outlining the necessity of the supplemental studies and materials requested in
conjunction with the entitlement application submittal.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Narrative
2. Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)
3. Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
4. Project Plans
Item 3
Packet Page 45
CityofSan Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, CityHall, 990Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Minutes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 6:01 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Vice-Chair Stevenson.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
OATH OF OFFICE
City Clerk Purrington administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Kahn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Robert Jorgensen, Steve Kahn, John McKenzie, Nicholas
Quincey, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chair Hemalata Dandekar, and Chair
Michael Wulkan.
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Community
Development Deputy Director Xzandrea Fowler, Interim Assistant City
Attorney Roy Hanley, Recording Secretary Summer Aburashed.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Vice-Chair Stevenson nominated Commissioner Wulkan for Chair, Commissioner Dandekar
seconded; consensus vote was unanimous.
Vice-Chair Stevenson nominated Commissioner Dandekar for Vice-Chair, Commissioner
Wulkan seconded; consensus vote was unanimous.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Lori Zahn
Steven Bromar
Item 3
Packet Page 46
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2019
Page 2 of 5
1.CONSENT AGENDA – CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, CARRIED 7-0-0 to approve the minutes of March 13,
2019, as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Project Address: 3985 Broad Street And 660 Tank Farm Road. Case #: ARCH-1486-
2018, EID-1484-2018, SPEC 1482-2018, SBDV-1483-2018, BP-SP, C-C-SF, and C/OS-
SP zones; NKT Development LLC and Westmont Development LLC, applicants.
Senior Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report and responded to Commission
inquiries.
Applicant Representatives, Carol Florence, Michael O’Rourke provided an overview of the
project . The Applicant Representative s, along with Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula,
responded to Commission inquires.
Chair Wulkan opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
Kim Love
Chair Wulkan closed the public hearing
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JORGENSEN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER MCKENZIE, CARRIED 7-0-0 to adopt Resolution No. PC1002-2019
entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE AIRPORT AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONE, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, CREEK
SETBACK EXCEPTION, AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE
PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND
COMMERCIAL CENTER AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 10, 2019 (660 TANK FARM
ROAD, 3985 BROAD STREET; EID-1484-2018, SPEC-1482-2018, SBVD-1483- 2018,
ARCH-1486-2018)” with the following modifications:
Add the following condition of approval:
Item 3
Packet Page 47
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2019
Page 3 of 5
The project shall make efforts to encourage bicycle and transit users. To this end, the project
shall include the following:
Transit – immediately south of the Broad Street ingress/egress (near buildings 5 & 6),
the planned sidewalk/landscape area along Broad Street shall be designed to easily
accommodate a bus turnout, should such demand arise in the future. Furthermore, the
applicant would not object should the transit authority determine such an
improvement was warranted.
Bike Racks – the following additional elements shall be installed to attract the use of
bicyclists: a) bike racks shall be located as close to building entrances as is practical;
b) at each bike each location, protective rain/sun canopies shall be installed, as well as
security lighting.
Modify the following Mitigation Measures as shown in strikethrough and underline:
BIO-1 Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be
conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting season for birds. If
vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then
preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be
impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, and vegetation removal is
conducted within 5 days of the survey and is done continuously, then no further mitigation
survey work shall be required. Additional surveys during the nesting season shall be conducted
as needed if there is any break in vegetation removal, grading and/or construction lasting more
than 5 days. If any active nests are found that would be impacted by vegetation removal, grading
and/or construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-
disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites
shall be avoided and protected within the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young
of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival (have fledged) as determined by a
qualified biologist. All workers shall receive training on good housekeeping practices during
construction that will discourage nests from being established within the work area (e.g., cover
stored pipe ends, cover all equipment being used daily, etc.) A qualified biologist shall regularly
walk the construction area to look for nest starts and review site for good housekeeping practices.
As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting
birds to a less-than-significant level.
N-1 Sound Wall and or Special Building Considerations South Elevation Assisted Living
Facility. At the time of submittal of construction plans for the assisted living facility, an
acoustical engineering report/analysis will be submitted detailing construction techniques
for noise mitigation to ensure interior habitable spaces facing south and to the east facing
the loading dock area at Building 1, do not exceed annual CNEL = 45 dBA. The
mitigation will most likely be wall, window and door assemblies, or a combination of
these, with an enhanced Sound Transmission Class rating to resist the street noise coming
from Tank Farm Road.
Item 3
Packet Page 48
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2019
Page 4 of 5
Delete Condition #40.
Consider modifying parking adjacent to the woonerf to be parallel instead of
perpendicular.
Consider exploring ways to address noise levels at outdoor areas in the commercial
project; especially at buildings 5 & 6.
RECESS:
The Commission recessed at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at 8:13 p.m. with all Commissioners
present .
3.Project Address: 487 Leff Street. Case #: ARCH-0077-2019, R-2-PD zone; The
Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commission
inquiries.
Applicant Representative s, Pam Ricci and Derek Rod, provided an overview of the project
and responded to Commission inquires.
Chair Wulkan opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
None
Chair Wulkan closed the public hearing
By consensus, the Co mmission recommended to continue the project to a date uncertain and
provide direction to the applicant on items to be addressed in the plans submitted for final
review.
The Commission provided the following directional items to be considered upon resubmittal
of the project plans;
Re-consider the scale and mass of the building by reducing the square-footage for
compatibility with the neighborhood and surrounding residential developments
within the R-2 zone.
Review and address the angled parking as it can be a safety issue for oncoming
traffic in proximity to intersections.
Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project that addresses change
of uses of proposed building in the future if HASLO moves from property.
Item 3
Packet Page 49
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2019
Page 5 of 5
The requested parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with a parking
demand study and transportation demand management plan.
Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project plans that addresses
the diagonal street parking and right turn into Beach Street regarding safety and
maneuverability.
The proposed sidewalk along the private property in the front of the office
development should be accessible by public through an easement .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
3.Agenda Forecast – Community Development Deputy Director Xzandrea Fowler provided an
update of upcoming projects and agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the location, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 06/26/2019
Item 3
Packet Page 50
Meeting Date: March 2, 2020
Item Number: 3
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of a two-story, 13,118-square foot office structure. The project will
include demolishing the existing 5,444-square foot offices, and redevelopment of the site, the project
proposes an amendment to the Planned Development Precise Plan (see Section 4.0) to address
requests for a 40 percent parking reduction, and reconfiguration of street parking, providing 16
parking spaces on-site where 44 parking spaces would normally be required (Attachment 1, Project
Description). The project includes exceptions to the street yard setback to allow for parking along Leff
Street, where a 20 foot setback is normally required, and an exception to allow a trash enclosure along
Beach Street, where a 10 foot setback is normally required (Attachment 2, Project Plans). The project
also includes exceptions to the sign regulations to allow three signs with a total area of 77.5 sq. ft.,
where normally limited to one sign of 20 sq. ft. (Attachment 3, Project Signage).
General Location: The 16,712-square foot
project site is located on developed property
along High Street, Leff Street, and Beach Street ,
with direct access from Beach and Leff Streets.
Present Use: HASLO Headquarters (Office)
Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2-PD)
zone within a Planned Development Overlay
General Plan: Medium Residential Density
Surrounding Uses:
East: Warehousing and Distribution
West: Multi-Family Housing
North: Multi-Family Housing
South: Multi-Family Housing
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary architectural design
Design details: Flat roof system with varying parapet heights and entry towers, outdoor sitting areas,
upper level balcony, trellises, rain screen, and awnings.
Materials: Stucco, fiber cement lap siding, open-slat aluminum siding, anodized aluminum storefront,
and precast concrete base.
Colors: Primary various wood elements; secondary colors include light blue, beige, greenish grey, with
a light-brown storefront and dark brown trim.
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 487 Leff Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
APPLICANT: Scott Smith REPRESENTATIVE: Pam Ricci
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 3
Packet Page 51
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 2
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations, and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments
and recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=24661
BACKGROUND
The Planned Development (PD) Overlay included development of 20 affordable residential units
located at 468 Leff Street, and the Housing Authority offices located at 487 Leff Street. The existing
Development Plan authorized a street setback reduction for the office development from 20 feet to
10 feet along High Street (Project Plans Sheet A3, Existing Site Plan). The applicant proposes to amend
the Development Plan to provide for a larger office development with a reduced setback for vehicle
parking within the street yard along Leff Street (Project Plans Sheet A4, Proposed Site Plan). Zoning
Regulations Section 17.48.090 (Amendments to Final Development Plans) stipulates that amendments
to final development plans may be approved by the Planning Commission when limited to changes in
the size and position of buildings, landscape treatment, or the like.
On April 10, 2019, the Planning Commission provided a conceptual review of the proposed project to
offer feedback to the applicant and staff on the project’s conceptual site layout and building design;
and to specifically discuss concerns and questions related to land use consistency (Attachment 4, PC
Report, Meeting Minutes 4.10.19). The Planning Commission provided the following comments:
• Re-consider the scale and mass of the building by reducing the square-footage for compatibility
with the neighborhood and surrounding residential developments within the R-2 zone.
• Review and address the angled parking as it can be a safety issue for oncoming traffic in
proximity to intersections.
• Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project that addresses change of uses
of proposed building in the future if HASLO moves from property.
• The requested parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with a parking demand
Figure 2: Rendering of project design from the intersection of Leff Street and High Street.
Item 3
Packet Page 52
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 3
study and transportation demand management plan.
• Staff shall prepare a statement upon resubmittal of the project plans that addresses the
diagonal street parking and right turn into Beach Street regarding safety and maneuverability.
• The proposed sidewalk along the private property in the front of the office development should
be accessible by public through an easement.
The applicant has modified the project plans to reflect the Planning Commission’s comments, a
response to each directional item has been provided in the project description (Attachment 1).
DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and CDG. The proposed project provides an office development within the residential
zone. Office structures differ from other commercial buildings in that their intensity of use is lower
while building scale is typically larger. Without careful attention in design to building form and mass,
and street level features, these structures can impair the pedestrian orientation of a streetscape. Staff
has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with CDG Chapter 3.1 (Commercial
Project Design Guidelines), CDG 3.4 (Guidelines for Specific Commercial and Industrial Uses), and the
Sign Regulations 15.40.600 (Exceptions to Sign Standards).
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
Chapter 3.1 – Commercial Project Design Guidelines
§ 3.1.B.2 Neighborhood
Compatibility
The CDG notes that new development should maintain its own identify
and be complementary to its surroundings. A new building can be
unique and interesting and still show compatibility with the
architectural styles and scale of other buildings in the vicinity. The ARC
should discuss whether the office development provides sufficient
design factors to contribute to neighborhood compatibility; design
theme, building scale/size, setbacks and massing, colors, textures, and
building materials.
§ 3.1.B.13 Signs
The CDG states that every structure should be designed with specific
consideration for adequate signage, including provisions for sign
placement, and scale in relation to building scale. The ARC should
discuss the proposed signage as it relates to placement and proportion
in relation to the building scale and design.
§ 3.1.C.2.i Building and Parking
Locations
The CDG states that the visual impact of parking lots should be
minimized by locating parking to the portion of the site that is the least
visible from the street. The ARC should discuss whether the placement
of parking areas is consistent with the intent of the CDG, as the parking
area has been oriented along the street and disguised as street parking.
CDG Chapter 3.4 – Guidelines for Specific Commercial and Industrial Uses
§ 3.4.C.2 a-b Building Design
The CDG provides specific design standards for office developments, to
address concerns for scale and pedestrian character along the
streetscape. The ARC should discuss whether the proposed design of
the building provides sufficient upper story step backs, vertical and
horizontal wall plane offsets, window areas, and visibly significant
architectural entry features.
Item 3
Packet Page 53
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 4
Sign Regulations – Exceptions to Sign Standards
§ 15.40.600 Findings for Approval
of an Exception
The Sign Regulations provide sign limitations based on zone, where the
proposed project is an office development on a residential zone the
project is still subject to the limitations of the R-2 zone. The ARC should
discuss whether the requested sign exceptions for the three signs with
a total area of 77.5 sq. ft., where normally limited to one sign with a
maximum size of 20 sq. ft. within the R-2 zone (Attachment 3), are
consistent with the findings for an exception from the Sign Regulations1.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Building Setbacks
Leff Street
Beach Street
High Street
28 feet
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Parking Setback 0 feet (Leff Street) 20 feet
Trash Enclosure Setback 0 feet (Beach Street) 10 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 34 feet 35 feet
Building Coverage 44% 50%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.78 No Requirement
Signage
Number of Signs
Maximum Area
3
77.5 sq. ft.
1
20 sq. ft.
Public Art Location identified on Sheet A4
(separate application required) Optional
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
44 (30% reduction)
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
30
65
10% EV Ready; 25% EV Capable
9
Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)
*2019 Zoning Regulations
1 15.40.610 Findings for Approval of an Exception. Exceptions to the Sign Regulations must meet all of the following findings:
(A) There are unusual circumstances applying to the property which make strict adherence to the regulations impractical or
infeasible, such as building configuration, historic architectural features, architectural style, site layout, intervening
obstructions, or other unusual circumstances. Exceptions shall not allow for additional signage in number or size beyond what
is necessary to compensate for the unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances may also include sign designs which are not
expressly provided for or exempted in this Chapter, but which represent superior or innovative design appropriate for the
building and location. (B) The exception is consistent with the intent and purpose of the sign regulations (see Section 15.40.110)
and the exception is not being granted in cases where alternative options of allowed signage in this Chapter could provide an
adequate alternative for sufficient visibility to the public with equal or superior design. (C) The sign exception is for superior
design and complies with Design Principles of this Chapter and will not result in: visual clutter; excessively sized signage in
comparison to the building or surroundings;
Item 3
Packet Page 54
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019 (487 Leff)
Page 5
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application
will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action. This action may include
recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
6.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Description
2. Project Plans
3. Project Signage
4. Previous PC Report, Meeting Minutes
5. Ordinance No. 506 (1970 Series)
6. Council Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series)
Item 3
Packet Page 55
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, March 2, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
March 2, 2020 at 5:06 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Micah Smith, Christie Withers, Vice-Chair Amy
Nemcik and Chair Allen Root
Absent: Commissioners Michael DeMartini and Mandi Pickens
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Senior Planner Shawna Scott and
Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
--End of Public Comment--
PRESENTATION
1. Community Development Director Michael Codron provided a presentation on SLO
Forward
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of
December 2, 2019.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITHERS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BELLER, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioners DeMartini and Pickens absent) to approve the
minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission meeting of December 2, 2019.
Item 3
Packet Page 56
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 2, 2020 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vice Chair Nemcik recused herself from Item #3 due to the close proximity of her residence to the
proposed project; she exited the room at 5:35 p.m.
3. Project Address: 487 Leff Street; Case #: ARCH-0506-2019; Zone: R-2-PD; Housing
Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), applicant. Development review of a new, two-
story, 13,118-square foot office building as part of an existing Planned Development (PD
0274). The project includes an amendment to the adopted Precise Plan approved through
Resolution No. 2249 (1971 Series) to address the new office development as it relates to the
Planned Development. The project also includes exceptions for parking and trash enclosures
within the street yard setback (0 feet where a 20-foot setback and 10-foot setback, respectively,
are normally required), exceptions to sign regulations, and a 40% parking reduction and off-
site parking. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative Scott Smith with HASLO, David Gibbs, RRM, Darren Cabral, RRM
responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Julie LeBrec
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITHERS, DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND,
to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project as presented.
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR ROOT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SMITH,
CARRIED 3-1-1-2 (Commissioner Withers dissenting, Vice Chair Nemcik recused,
Commissioners DeMartini and Pickens absent) to continue the item to a date uncertain with
the following conditions:
• Plans shall be revised to incorporate lower plate heights of the building to reduce the mass
and scale of the structure.
• Plans shall be revised to reduce the bulk and mass of the vertical support column along the
High Street elevation.
• Plans shall consider incorporating pitched roof elements into the project to address further
compatibility with adjacent residential structures.
• Plans shall consider simplifying materiality of the project by reducing either the number of
colors or types of materials to reduce clutter and simplify the design.
• The applicant shall demonstrate safe vehicle circulation for vehicles that maneuver in and
out of the on-site parking space closest to the intersection of High Street and Leff Street.
Vice Chair Nemcik rejoined the meeting at 6:52 p.m.
Item 3
Packet Page 57
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 2, 2020 Page 3
RECESS
The Commission recessed at 6:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting with all members present at
7:56 p.m.
4. Project Address: 810 Orcutt Road; Case #: ARCH-0847-2019; Zone: C-7; Mark and
Missy Cameron, owner/applicant. Development review of a new 23-foot tall, 4,131-square
foot warehouse structure to be constructed on the rear portion of an existing lot, with an
existing 2,000-square foot structure to remain. The project includes proposed site
improvements to the surface parking area. The project is categorically exempt from
environmental review (CEQA).
Assistant Planner Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representative Carol Isaman with Isaman Design Inc. responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Public Comments:
None.
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
WITHERS, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioners DeMartini and Pickens absent) to recommend
that the Community Development Director approve the project with the following
consideration for the applicant:
• Consider adding more contrasting or lighter colors to the front of the building
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2020
Item 3
Packet Page 58
MEMORANDUM
Date: 04-13-2019
To: Kyle Bell
Organization: City of SLO
From: David Gibbs, Darin Cabral
Title: ARC Comments/Directional Items
response
Project Name: 487 Leff Street – HASLO Office
Building
Project Number: 0879-01-RS17
Topic: ARC Comments/Directional Items response
Plans shall be revised to incorporate lower plate heights of the building to reduce the mass and
scale of the structure.
We have reduced the building height by 2’
Plans shall be revised to reduce the bulk and mass of the vertical support column along the High
Street elevation.
We have revised Column Shown by reducing its section width by 1/3rd and removing the 45 degree
brackets. Through these edits the prominence/bulk and mass of this column has been greatly
reduced.
Plans shall consider incorporating pitched roof elements into the project to address further
compatibility with adjacent residential structures.
We have revised the flat trellis/window shades to provide pitched awnings at the pedestrian level
with standing seam metal roofing. We have added a “Covered Porch” on the High Street entry as
well to enhance the human scale and proportions at key building elements per the CDG. As
discussed, during the meeting we felt the addition of a “pitch roof” or in this case a mansard roof
at the upper level would not be appropriate or authentic, nor would it be consistent with the CDG
for a commercial building. This Office building should fit within the existing pattern and character
of High Street between Broad and Higuera as a whole. The adjacent residential structures do not
make up the full fabric of this unique grid‐adjusting street in San Luis Obispo. From existing offices,
religious structures, coffee shops, deli, gas stations, and auto repair services; High street has a
variety of uses and architectural character that as a result do not all incorporate sloped roofs.
While this design gives due nods to the adjacent structures, they are only a part of the fabric along
Item 3
Packet Page 59
High Street. These added sloped awnings enhance the pedestrian human scale elements from the
previous submittal without removing the authenticity of this proposal as an office building. With
the overarching goal of keeping the scale of this type of commercial building low in height, a fully
sloped roof element would only be accomplished through a false, inauthentic, mansard roof. The
CDG clearly discourages such lack of authenticity and use of such roof systems. Overall, when
considering the full context of High Street, this office building and its parapet roof tie in well with
the existing commercial context just a few doors down High street in either direction. We are
thankful for the consideration request from the ARC as it led to an improvement of pedestrian level
sloped roofs.
Plans shall consider simplifying materiality of the project by reducing either the number of
colors or types of materials to reduce clutter and simplify the design.
We have removed the Green Paint Color. We have removed one of the fiber cement materials. We
have removed one of the two wainscot/base materials. We have also simplified and reduced two‐
story masses to enhance cohesiveness and simplicity of the design.
The applicant shall demonstrate safe vehicle circulation for vehicles that maneuver in and out
of the on‐site parking space closest to the intersection of High Street and Leff Street.
We believe this comment has already been address through our discussion with the Traffic Division
therefore we would request that we defer this comment to the Planning Commission where we
can have a representative from the Traffic Division provide a response.
Item 3
Packet Page 60
Item 3
Packet Page 61
Item 3
Packet Page 62
Item 3
Packet Page 63
Item 3
Packet Page 64
Item #3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
487 Leff Street (ARCH-0506-2019)
HASLO Headquarters
Continued review of a new two-story office building consisting of 13,118
square feet, as part of an existing Planned Development. The project
includes exceptions to the street yard setback requirements, sign
regulations, and includes a 40% parking reduction and off -site parking.
Staff Presentation By:
Associate Planner, Kyle Bell
Applicant: SLO Housing Authority
Recommendation
Provide comments regarding consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and recommend direction on the projects design to the
Planning Commission.
Project Background
8
Leff Street Apartments;
◼Planned Development Overlay established in 1970
◼Development Plan approved in 1971
◼Building modifications between 1978 -2019
The existing Development Plan authorized a street
setback reduction from 20 feet to 10 feet, and a 27%
parking reduction.
Project Background
9
On April 10, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the
conceptual site layout and building design and provided
feedback to the applicant and staff.
On March 2, 2020, the ARC reviewed the project and
identified concerns for consistency with the design
guidelines and provided five directional items.
Directional Items
1.Lower the height of the structure
2.Reduce bulk of support column
3.Consider pitched roof elements and further
compatibility with neighborhood
4.Simplify materiality
5.Demonstrate safe vehicle maneuverability
10
11
12
Discussion Item #1
Provide feedback to the PC on the request to
deviate from the design guidelines for
neighborhood compatibility in consideration of
the unique circumstances of the site and the
context of High Street.
13
Recommendation
Provide comments regarding consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and recommend direction on the projects design to the Planning
Commission.
Item #3 (Continued)
487 LEFF STREET
ARCH-0506-2019 & PDEV-0507-2019
Applicant Presentation By:
David Gibbs, RRM Design Group
Darin Cabral, RRM Design Group